"Should We Return to a Gold Standard?"

renman95

Surprisingly good article in our nation's sheeple newspaper

derryb

We have a gold standard. It is the standard by which we can honestly value our currency. It is currently telling us that paper money is worth less each year.

ebaytrader

<< <i>In the pre-1933 U.S., your gold was worth $35 an ounce. >>



Umm, no.



Interesting article, tho. Looks like the gold bugs need to rethink their position on a gold standard. Fiat money was the right decision a hundred years ago. The people we put in charge is the problem.

cohodk

<< <i>

<< <i>In the pre-1933 U.S., your gold was worth $35 an ounce. >>



Umm, no.



Interesting article, tho. Looks like the gold bugs need to rethink their position on a gold standard. Fiat money was the right decision a hundred years ago. The people we put in charge is the problem. >>




As MJ might say, "this".

renman95

<< <i>

<< <i>In the pre-1933 U.S., your gold was worth $35 an ounce. >>



Umm, no.



Interesting article, tho. Looks like the gold bugs need to rethink their position on a gold standard. Fiat money was the right decision a hundred years ago. The people we put in charge is the problem. >>



The current class likes the ambiguity. Gold would make them accountable. Long live ambiguity.

roadrunner

Fiat system has been proven a bust over the past 40 yrs. The gold standard worked until bankers and govt's cheated on it. The last functioning one ended in 1914.
The only good monetary system is the one that won't get cheated on.

But returning to the gold standard also has myriad problems. On a practical level, there's not enough gold in the world to return to a gold standard —
and no one else in the world is on the gold standard. By tying the value of the dollar to gold, the government cedes control of monetary policy,
making it unable to increase the money supply in times of economic crisis.

Just the 1st paragraph has flaws in it. There's more than enough gold in the world for a workable gold standard. It's just a matter of what ratio of gold to currency is
chosen. It doesn't have to and shouldn't be 1-1. The previous gold standards had real bills in effect that allowed "paper gold IOU's" to circulate throughout the economy for up to
91 days to pay for critical labor and manufactured goods. There were a number of times of crisis in the past where the gold standard was suspended or ignored:
post-War of 1812 period in the south (1814-1821), Civil War, WW1, great depression, etc. Money supplies have been increased in the past even when a gold standard was in force.
It's when the booms went bust and everyone wanted gold (or suitable monetary or tangible equivalent) at the same time where it was clear there was more money loaned out than
really existed. It's no different today. Most people think the gold standards of the past required physical gold to be paid for every transaction...and that's not been the case. Gold
is currently being used by central banks as money to help balance out currency swaps of failing nations. The debtor nations give up some gold to keep credit and swap lines open.

derryb

a good study of the roman empire will show it's decline was because of the same monetary problems as modern society and dealing with them in the same way. You can't change the human nature of empowered leaders. You have to change the amount of power you give them and remove their ability to give it to themselves. A monetary gold standard aids in doing this.

The weak link in a gold standard is the ability of the treasury to lie about the amount of gold in the vault.

This could be easily resolved with periodic GSA audits.

mhammerman

"On a practical level, there's not enough gold in the world to return to a gold standard."

Laughable in that the same people using our 100:1 fractional banking system based on worthless fiat don't want to even consider the concept that you should have an actual asset that provides the underlying value to our currency. Instead, the underlying value of our currency is based on full faith in something.

Hey buddy...GOT GOLD?

Baley

because, before, when there was a gold standard, there never were any economic booms or busts, never had any panics or depressions, never had any fraud, abuse, or theft.

the magical gold standard has, historically, prevented all economic problems. That's the main reason, we have read, why everything is worse now than it ever has been in the past.

cohodk

<< <i>" the underlying value of our currency is based on full faith in something...like it was some kind of religion >>




You're talking about GOLD, right?

jmski52

"Should We Return to a Gold Standard?"

I'm thinking that it actually would be an improvement, since it would require accountability.

Spooly

"On a practical level, there's not enough gold in the world to return to a gold standard."



A mixed standard would work. (Example only)

Gold 50%
Silver 20%
Platinum 15%
Oil (% of that countries proven reserves) 15%


The best way:

No debt.. the government can't issue debt. (unless of war... approved by congress)
The government must balance the budget every year.
No more fractional reserve system. Banks have to loan from real cash reserves.
No more private Federal Reserve Banks.
Money must be backed with basket of PM and Commodities. (A basket of items so large that no one can "corner the market" and control liquidity.)

dpoole

<< <i>because, before, when there was a gold standard, there never were any economic booms or busts, never had any panics or depressions, never had any fraud, abuse, or theft.

the magical gold standard has, historically, prevented all economic problems. That's the main reason, we have read, why everything is worse now than it ever has been in the past. >>




Good points, Baley.

I knew you'd come around.

renman95

<< <i>because, before, when there was a gold standard, there never were any economic booms or busts, never had any panics or depressions, never had any fraud, abuse, or theft.

the magical gold standard has, historically, prevented all economic problems. That's the main reason, we have read, why everything is worse now than it ever has been in the past. >>



This.

roadrunner

<< <i>"On a practical level, there's not enough gold in the world to return to a gold standard."

A mixed standard would work. (Example only)

Gold 50%
Silver 20%
Platinum 15%
Oil (% of that countries proven reserves) 15%

The best way:

No debt.. the government can't issue debt. (unless of war... approved by congress)
The government must balance the budget every year.
No more fractional reserve system. Banks have to loan from real cash reserves.
No more private Federal Reserve Banks.
Money must be backed with basket of PM and Commodities. (A basket of items so large that no one can "corner the market" and control liquidity.)
>>



A good list. I'd also toss in regulation or removal of otc derivatives that have no end users (ie nearly all of those issued by the largest banks).
The bankers have been using this "system" as their own debt-money/liquidity source for the past 10-15 yrs. It's got to go too. Having a sound national
monetary system would be great. But knowing that bankers can bring things down at any time with their 50-1 leveraged system has to be
reigned in....or preferably destroyed. We didn't need it prior to 1989, there's no reason we need it today.

EagleEye

During so-called gold standard days, I think most countries kept only a fraction of their currency in circulation backed one-to-one with gold reserves. They claimed convertibility on demand and if demand got too much they closed the window.

so $9 Trillion in gold could back $90 Trillion, or maybe $180 Trillion.

Today you have convertibility on demand, but with transaction fees and capital gains taxes.

If we went on a gold standard, you would be given pieces of paper saying there is gold stored by the Government and you can request it when you want (at their pleasure, of course).